http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #6 from Thiago Macieira 2013-04-25 06:51:33
UTC ---
void f(A &&a)
{
std::move(a).p();
}
_Z1fO1A:
.cfi_startproc
jmp _ZNR1A1pEv@PLT #
.cfi_endproc
Then this looks like a bug in 4.8.1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-25 06:34:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Making it:
> >
> > std::move(a).p();
> >
> > Does not help.
>
> It does for me...
Note that I only tested 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-25 06:19:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Now suppose the following function:
>
> void g(A &&a)
> {
> a.p();
> }
>
> Which overload should GCC call? This is my request for clarificat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57065
Bug #: 57065
Summary: incorrect default allocator template for debug and
profile unordered_map
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57017
--- Comment #8 from Alan Aversa 2013-04-25
02:53:02 UTC ---
I upgraded to binutils 2.23.52.0.1 and the problem went away.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #3 from Thiago Macieira 2013-04-25 00:53:20
UTC ---
One more note. Given:
void p(A &);
void p(A &&);
void f(A &&a)
{
p(a);
}
like the member function case, this calls p(A &). It's slightly surprising at
first gl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #2 from Thiago Macieira 2013-04-25 00:45:39
UTC ---
This was a self-compiled, pristine GCC
gcc version 4.8.1 20130420 (prerelease) (GCC)
trunk at 198107
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #1 from Thiago Macieira 2013-04-25 00:45:00
UTC ---
Here's why I'm asking:
QString has members like:
QString arg(int, [other parameters]) const;
Which are used like so:
return QString("%1 %2 %3 %4").arg(42).ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
Bug #: 57064
Summary: [clarification requested] Which overload with
ref-qualifier should be called?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56716
Greg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gccbugzi...@tru-traffic.com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56905
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57063
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57063
Bug #: 57063
Summary: Valid static_cast from data member to rvalue reference
fails to compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57062
Bug #: 57062
Summary: genattrtab reports errors in wrong file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56866
--- Comment #13 from Winfried Magerl 2013-04-24
20:58:13 UTC ---
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:49:15PM +, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56866
>
> --- Comment #12 from Marc G
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57028
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57061
Bug #: 57061
Summary: [patch] gcc-4.7.3 has declarations after statements
and fails to compile on old systems
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57060
Bug #: 57060
Summary: std::this_thread::get_id() == std::thread::id::id()
without -pthread
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56859
Ruben Van Boxem changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-24
18:45:28 UTC ---
Runtime testcase for -O2, works with -O2 -fno-cprop-registers.
It doesn't fail always, but around in 50% of cases, and heavily depends on what
glibc is in use and what CPU too
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57056
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-24 18:43:08
UTC ---
Some relevant links:
PR 56944
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15384
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-04/msg00568.html
Note that on my core2 laptop, it i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57059
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-24
18:24:23 UTC ---
Reduced testcase (non-runtime, but one can see that %rdi which should be
clobbered by the memcpy call is used immediately after the memcpy call).
Probably wouldn't be too hard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57059
Bug #: 57059
Summary: Host configuration of loose_warn breaks for build
components for Canadian crosses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57058
Bug #: 57058
Summary: Bootstrap problems on AIX (libgcc configure, 64-bit)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57054
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57028
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-24
16:54:41 UTC ---
As far as I understand it, there are two issues:
1. zlib isn't built unless some explicitly enabled component demands it; in my
case (on x86_64) zlib was built since I had
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|middle-en
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53721
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57057
--- Comment #1 from Mathias Gaunard 2013-04-24
16:42:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 29931
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29931
bad optimisation testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57057
Bug #: 57057
Summary: Bad optimization on x86 for minps and maxps
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57056
Bug #: 57056
Summary: Missed optimization of finite finite builtin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #14 from Kirill Smirnov
2013-04-24 16:06:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 29929
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29929
gcc -E output.
Attached gcc -E output. Lines around 22354 are being investigated.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56970
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57028
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jb at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57028
gretay at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gretay at gcc dot gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56797
gretay at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Reso
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56797
--- Comment #4 from gretay at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-24 14:18:04 UTC ---
Author: gretay
Date: Wed Apr 24 10:43:41 2013
New Revision: 198220
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198220&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-04-24 Greta Yorsh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56797
--- Comment #3 from gretay at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-24 14:17:52 UTC ---
Author: gretay
Date: Fri Apr 19 12:55:26 2013
New Revision: 198091
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198091&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-04-19 Greta Yorsh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57038
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka 2013-04-24
13:35:36 UTC ---
Hmm, the failing test is:
/* Be sure that we never try to duplicate partitioned symbol
or add external symbol. */
gcc_assert (c != SYMBOL_EXTERNAL
&& (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57055
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57055
Bug #: 57055
Summary: Incorrect CFG after transactional memory passes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57051
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-24
10:44:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 29928
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29928
gcc49-pr57051.patch
It isn't that hard to fold VEC_RSHIFT_EXPR, at least for the cases wher
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56970
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56970
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56973
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56915
--- Comment #6 from Shixiong 2013-04-24
09:36:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
yes, I know that. I just want to let the bug submitter have a try.
> Normally patches go to gcc-patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57041
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-24
09:28:19 UTC ---
This is a Dup of testcase in Comment #2 of PR55365.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57054
--- Comment #2 from nizamov.shawkat at gmail dot com 2013-04-24 09:23:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 29927
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29927
Preprocessed source stored into file, please attach this to your bugreport.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57054
--- Comment #1 from nizamov.shawkat at gmail dot com 2013-04-24 09:22:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 29926
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29926
save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57054
Bug #: 57054
Summary: Compilation with -O3 passes, with -O2 fails (ARM/NEON)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56915
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-24
09:16:20 UTC ---
Normally patches go to gcc-patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57052
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-linux
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57051
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57050
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57050
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57051
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-24
08:10:21 UTC ---
Well, one thing differs, 4.7 with -O3 aligns 'total' to
.align 16
whereas 4.8 with -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize has
.align 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57051
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57053
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57053
Bug #: 57053
Summary: inaccurate message for ambiguous calls when in fact
there is not valid candidate
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Statu
62 matches
Mail list logo
